Reacting to child abuse by lowering the age of consent would be cruel

Barrister Barbara Hewson decries the 'persecution of old men'. She is not the only critic of the law who should know better

'Perhaps the most worrying part of Barbara Hewson’s article is the conclusion that the priority should be simply to lower the age of consent. Given the Yewtree finding that most of Jimmy Savile’s (pictured) victims were in the 13-16 age group, this is perverse.' Photograph: Murdo Macleod
Murdo Macleod/Murdo Macleod

The latest aftershock in the wake of the Jimmy Savile and Rochdale revelations has been not another celebrity name on the list of accused, but an attempt to dismiss an apparent watershed moment as little more than a moral panic. Barrister Barbara Hewson writes in Spiked magazine that Operation Yewtree, heralded by most as a clear if long overdue success, is in fact engaged in "the persecution of old men". Which makes sense, if you also believe (as Hewson apparently does) that anything short of "flogging and rape in padded rooms" is not a "really serious" assault.

But perhaps the most worrying part of Hewson's article is the conclusion that the priority should be simply to lower the age of consent. Given the Yewtree finding that most of Savile's victims were in the 13-16 age group, this is perverse, and not backed up with any mention of whether children this age have enough capacity to consent – the whole premise of the law in the first place. As such, her suggestion amounts to nothing more than a large and very ugly carpet under which to sweep the problem – as well as being strikingly cruel to victims who have now come forward to speak about the lasting impact of abuse.

It is important to note at this point a fact that has somehow got lost in the media coverage, which is that Hewson does not actually appear to practise criminal law. The most immediate harm that her article could potentially do is to suggest to victims that these ideas are commonly held by the people who defend or even prosecute in these cases – and who cross-examine the victims. The focus of those leading the criminal justice response to these cases could not be more different, as shown by the work being done by the Crown Prosecution Service to overhaul the way allegations are treated in future.

Yet Hewson has, however inadvertently, highlighted something important, which is a lack of informed media commentary on important legal matters like the age of consent, which do need and deserve to be debated outside courtrooms and law schools. Some social media commenters have responded to her piece by attacking her personally or calling for her to be disciplined, but the point they're missing is that she's not altogether a lone voice. In fact her article is by no means the first to mangle the issue of sexual consent recently.

In particular, there's a worrying habit of critiquing the law on consent without being in full possession of the facts (I'm looking at you, George Galloway, and whoever cleared this headline at the BBC). The theme of lowering the age of consent, usually based on a flawed understanding of how cases are prosecuted, also resurfaces fairly regularly. The most recent example of this was from campaigner Peter Tatchell, who believes that the current law threatens to convict teenagers of rape if they sleep with partners who, though very close to them in age, are below 16.

Although the law does indeed nominally categorise this as a crime, it is still for the CPS to decide whether what looks like a clear breach of the law is actually in the public interest to prosecute. Which, as it sets out in its publicly available guidance, it isn't in cases involving consenting teenagers: "Children of the same or similar age are highly unlikely to be prosecuted for engaging in sexual activity, where the activity is mutually agreed and there is no abuse or exploitation."

Hewson is not the main problem. A lack of public awareness around the law is. It's a very good thing that genuine experts are increasingly willing to engage, and the role of social media in amplifying their voices has made a significant difference here. And the arguments for making such a socially important issue as the law on consent part of the curriculum are surely stronger now than they have ever been. But there's also a message for writers, editors, reporters and even retweeters in all this: writing about the law without proper research is like making a cake without the instructions. It's going to waste your time, make a mess and probably leave a nasty taste in the mouth.